Is the science of moral cognition usefully modeled on aspects of Universal Grammar? Are human beings born with an innate 'moral grammar' that causes them to analyse human action in terms of its moral structure, with just as little awareness as they analyse human speech in terms of its grammatical structure? Questions like these have been at the forefront of moral psychology ever since John Mikhail revived them in his influential work on the linguistic analogy and its implications for jurisprudence and moral theory. In this seminal book, Mikhail offers a careful and sustained analysis of the moral grammar hypothesis, showing how some of John Rawls' original ideas about the linguistic analogy, together with famous thought experiments like the trolley problem, can be used to improve our understanding of moral and legal judgement.

Contents

Part I. Theory1. The question presented [preview, pdf]2. A new framework for the theory of moral cognition3. The basic elements of Rawls' linguistic analogy

Part III. Objections and Replies 7. R. M. Hare and the distinction between empirical and normative adequacy8. Thomas Nagel and the competence-performance distinction9. Ronald Dworkin and the distinction between I-morality and E-morality

Part IV. Conclusion10. Toward a universal moral grammar.

John Mikhail is Professor of Law and Philosophy at Georgetown University.

Q: In your writing, we encounter a person called the world citizen. How would I spot one in a bar?

A: Well, I think you'd have to strike up a conversation about some global topic: free-trade coffee, global warming or terrorism. Then you'd see whether this person was just parroting slogans from the media or was really thinking for him or herself. You'd see whether there was at least a reasonable degree of knowledge behind the claims being made. I'd also look for a high level of listening and curiosity, some self-doubt and humility rather than complacency, and an ability to imagine what other people are thinking and feeling.

The article is an enlarged version of Habermas's speech at Humboldt University, Berlin, on June 16, 2011. The speech was published in "Der Handelsblatt", June 17, 2011, entitled "Das Europa der Staatsbürger". See my post here.

Abstract:"The paper explores the possible contributions of deliberative procedures of political will formation to solving the problems encountered by liberal democracies today. To begin with, four functions of liberal democracy are distinguished: securing international peace, guaranteeing legal as well as political peace domestically, and producing good active citizens. The following part of the argument distinguishes four structural features characteristic of democratic regimes: stateness, rule of law, political competition, and accountability of the rulers. Thirdly, a brief summary of critical accounts concerning democracy’s actual failures and symptoms of malfunctioning is presented. In the final section, two families of institutional innovations that are currently being proposed as remedies for the observed defi ciencies of democracy are explored: those leading to a better aggregation of given preferences of the citizens and those aimed at improving the process of preference formation itself. It is the latter, which constitutes the field of deliberative politics that is investigated at some length. Beneficial effects of deliberative procedures and essential features of deliberative structures are discussed with reference to latest developments in the theory and empirical research on deliberative democracy."

Claus Offe is Professor of Political Sociology at the Hertie School of Governance, Berlin.

Professsor Egon Flaig (Rostock) has published an essay in "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" (July 13, 2011) on the so-called Historikerstreit (The Historians' Dispute) between Ernest Nolte and Jürgen Habermas et.al. in 1986-1989:

The translation is published as an afterword in a new book, entitled "What Germany Thinks About Europe" (edited by Ulrike Guérot and Jacqueline Hénard). A German edition of the book is available here (pdf).

The speech was given by Habermas at a meeting on "Europe and the re-discovery of the German nation-state" arranged by the Berlin office of the European Council on Foreign Relations. The original speech is available here (pdf) and here ("Süddeutsche Zeitung", April 7, 2011).Excerpts have been published in "Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik" (May, 2011).

Recent acts of terrorism and the current unrest in the Middle East remind us how important it is to understand the relationship between violence, peace and democracy. In a challenging and insightful essay, Amartya Sen explores ideas around 'organised violence' (such as war, genocide and terrorism) and violence against the individual. Highlighting the inadequacies of some of the widely accepted explanations for violence – including the idea that the world is experiencing a 'clash of civilisations' – Sen makes a plea for a global, multilateral debate on the causes of conflict, and an understanding of the multiple identities of the individuals involved.

"Civil Paths to Peace"Report of the Commonwealth Commission on Respect and Understanding

1. Why do Respect and Understanding Matter?2. The Nature and Nurture of Violence3. Poverty, Inequality and Humiliation4. History, Grievance and Conflict5. Political Participation6. The Role of Media and Commonwealth7. Young People and Education8. Multilateralism and the International Order9. The Way Forward and Conclusion

Amartya Sen is Lamont University Professor at Harvard University. His most recent book is "The Idea of Justice" (Harvard University Press, 2009). Amartya Sen chaired the Commission on Respect and Understanding. Among the other members is Professor Kwame Anthony Appiah.